alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cesar GOMEZ-RIVAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70197.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 6, 2011.

*750Cesar Gomez-Rivas, El Centro, CA, pro se.

Keith Ian McManus, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cesar Gomez-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We agree with the agency’s conclusion that Gomez-Rivas’ 2009 controlled substance offense is not amenable to treatment under the Federal First Offender Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3607. *See de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales,*503 F.3d 1019, 1025-27 (9th Cir.2007).

The agency properly determined that Gomez-Rivas was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had previously received that *form of*relief. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6).

In his opening brief, Gomez-Rivas fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the agency’s determination that his convictions for being under the influence of a controlled substance involved federally-defined controlled substances. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review Gomez-Rivas’ contention that his 2009 conviction was not a “conviction” as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48) because he failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

*751Gomez-Rivas’ remaining contentions are not persuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE: 

9:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 10, 2021.

# PLACE: 

Virtual.

# STATUS: 

The one item may be viewed by the public through webcast only.

# MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

                    67354 Safety Research Report—                     *Preventing Turbulence-Related Injuries in Air Carrier Operations Conducted Under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Candi Bing at (202) 590-8384 or by email at                         *bingc@ntsb.gov.*

*Media Information Contact:*                         Chris O'Neil by email at                         *chris.oneil@ntsb.gov*                         or at (202) 314-6100.                    

                        This meeting will take place virtually. The public may view it through a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “Webcast of Events” on the NTSB home page at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

                        There may be changes to this event due to the evolving situation concerning the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

The National Transportation Safety Board is holding this meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

Dated: Friday, July 16, 2021.

Candi R. Bing,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2021-15527 Filed 7-16-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
#### Barneli & Cie SA, Respondent, v Dutch Book Fund SPC, Ltd, et al., Appellants.

[946 NYS2d 53]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 12, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) and 3016 (b), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 25, 2011, which, inter alia, upon reargument, adhered to the determination on the original motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendants’ favor dismissing the complaint.

The fourth cause of action (for fraud) is not viable, given the representations and warranties that plaintiff made in the *737Subscription Agreement that it signed and the fact that it failed to investigate before investing $50 million in defendant Dutch Book Fund SPC, Ltd (Fund) *(see e.g. MBIA Ins. Corp. v Merrill Lynch,*81 AD3d 419 [2011]; *Graham Packaging Co., L.P. v Owens-Illinois, Inc.,*67 AD3d 465 [2009]; *Permasteelisa, S.p.A. v Lincolnshire Mgt., Inc.,*16 AD3d 352 [2005]). If neither plaintiff nor its representatives had expertise in algorithms or probability theory, then plaintiff should have “retain[ed] qualified outside consultants” *(HSH Nordbank AG v UBS AG,*95 AD3d 185 [2012]).

The fraud claim cannot be sustained as against defendants Dutch Book Partners, LLC (Partners) and Stanley R. Jonas for the additional reason that plaintiff relied solely on Fund documents *(see Valassis Communications v Weimer,*304 AD2d 448 [2003], *appeal dismissed*2 NY3d 794 [2004]), and did not allege any actionable statements made by Partners or Jonas *(see e.g. Lai v Gartlan,*28 AD3d 263 [2006]; *Handel v Bruder,*209 AD2d 282 [1994]).

Because the fraud claim cannot stand as against Partners, there is no basis on which to hold Jonas liable as the alter ego of Partners (the fifth cause of action). In addition, the conclusory allegations in the complaint are insufficient to state a veil-piercing claim *(see e.g. Andejo Corp. v South St. Seaport Ltd. Partnership,*40 AD3d 407 [2007]; *Albstein v Elany Contr. Corp.,*30 AD3d 210 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 712 [2006]). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 28 Misc 3d 1232(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51571(U).]
# C_2022119EN.01004102.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/41

---

Order of the General Court of 4 January 2022 — CR and CT v ECB

(Case T-730/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 119/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: CR, CT (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, A. Lefterov and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the ECB’s assessment of 15 August 2019 in which it found that PNB Banka AS was failing or likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Republic of Latvia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Republic of Latvia.

| 3. | CR and CT shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

CR and CT shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene.

| 4. | CR and CT, the ECB and the Republic of Latvia shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

CR and CT, the ECB and the Republic of Latvia shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7869** 
WILLIE J. HUFF, a/k/a Willie James Huff, a/k/a S Willie J. Huff , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

– Appellee
.

Ap peal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. ( 8:08

- cv - 02058

- PMD )

Submitted : May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS , Ci rcuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Willie J. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublishe d opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Willie J. Huff seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDa niel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petit ion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Huff has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Huff’s motion to stay, deny a cert ificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 11, 2015

No. 04-15-00129-CV

IN RE Armando HERNANDEZ and Nancy Hernandez

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On March 10, 2015, relators Armando Hernandez and Nancy Hernandez filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief pending a ruling on the 

mandamus petition. The court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. 

§51.014(a)(1), (4) (West 2015) (authorizing interlocutory appeal from orders appointing a 

receiver and granting temporary injunction). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and 

emergency motion for temporary relief are DENIED without prejudice to relators’ right to 

request emergency relief in the context of an interlocutory appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3, 

52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on March 11, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CI-17077, styled Armando Hernandez and Nancy Hernandez v. 

Mario Saldivar, Fernando Saldivar, Jorge Calderon, and Jorge Saldivar, pending in the 150th Judicial District 

Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe presiding.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(A)

                 CERTIFICATION BY THE PRESIDENT RELATING TO THE
                 ANNUAL REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

     I, Leonard A. Cullo, Jr., Director and President of H.J. Heinz Finance
Company, a Delaware corporation ("Heinz Finance"), hereby certify that, to my
knowledge:

     1. Heinz Finance's annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
        April 27, 2005 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended; and

     2. The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        Heinz Finance.

Date: July 25, 2005

                                          By: /s/ LEONARD A. CULLO, JR.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Leonard A. Cullo, Jr.
                                            Title:  Director and President
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00511-CV

NO. 03-15-00617-CV

Diane V. Wade, Appellant

v.

David’s Landscaping; and David’s Landscaping, Inc., Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-13-004070, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

In response to a query about the clerk’s record, appellant Diane V. Wade informed

this Court by letter dated November 16, 2015 that the notice of appeal that began appellate cause

number 03-15-00617-CV addressed the same summary judgment as the notice of appeal that began

appellate cause number 03-15-00511-CV. In response, this Court informed the parties that, unless

they objected, these causes would be consolidated. No objection has been filed.

These appellate causes are consolidated. The record and all filings from cause

number 03-15-00511-CV are consolidated into cause number 03-15-00617-CV. The consolidated

appeal will proceed under cause number 03-15-00617-CV, and cause number 03-15-00511-CV is

dismissed.
Appellees’ motion for extension of time to file their brief is granted. Appellees’ brief

is due to be filed on or before February 1, 2016.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Bourland

03-15-00511-CV Dismissed

03-15-00617-CV Consolidated

Filed: January 7, 2016

2
#### Edward W. Bollen et al., Appellants, v Consolidated Rail Corporation et al., Respondents.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew Tyler, J.), entered on December 24, 1984, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Andrew Tyler, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Fein and Ellerin, JJ.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This amendment (“Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of May 6, 2009 (“Agreement”) by and between YOUNG INNOVATIONS, INC., a Missouri corporation, (“Company”) and Alfred E. Brennan, of Algonquin, Illinois (“Employee”) is entered into as of December 30, 2010.  Capitalized terms herein have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.




The Employer and Employee intending to be legally bound, hereby agree to the amend the Agreement as follows pursuant to an in accordance with Section 10(f) of the Agreement:




The following language shall be added in Section 6(d) after the phrase “Any additional benefits provided under this Section 6(d) shall be paid in installments”:




“beginning on the first payroll date following the date that is 60 days following the Employee’s termination date, which such first payment shall include payments relating to such initial 60 day period; provided that the release described above has been executed (and any applicable waiting periods have expired or been waived).  Any additional benefits under this Section 6(d) shall also be....”














******







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the date first above written.









EMPLOYER


YOUNG INNOVATIONS, INC.




By:___________________________




Its:___________________________














EMPLOYEE




By:__________________________
# C_2021217EN.01003801.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi)

(Case T-282/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 217/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2019 (Case R 2295/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Filotas Bellas & Yios.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10003 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RUSSELL ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-104-ALL-A

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Russell Robinson has requested leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Robinson has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is
DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
# C_2020061EN.01004002.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/40

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2019 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaamse Gewest v Parliament and Council

(Case T-66/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Internal market - Fundamental freedoms - Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 - Establishment of a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services - Sub-national authority - Standing to bring proceedings - Individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 61/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vlaamse Gemeenschap (Belgium) and Vlaamse Gewest (Belgium) (represented by: T. Eyskens, N. Bonbled and P. Geysens, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. McDowell, R. van de Westelaken and M. Peternel, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission.

| 3. | Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaamse Gewest shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaamse Gewest shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

| 4. | The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---